election guide 2004

8/14/2019 election guide 2004

1/40

Issues o f Democracy

E L E C T I ON S GU I D E

2 0 0 4

B U R E A U O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N P R O G R A M S

U . S . D E P A R T M E N T 0 F S T A T E

O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4


2/40

Democracy and Human Rights h October 2004 eJournal USA

Editor.........Leslie C. HighAssociate Editors.................Rebecca Ford Mitchell

Rosalie Targonski Alexandra Abboud

Carrie LeeReference/Research.................Anita Green

Lorna DodtArt Director.................Chloe EllisCover Design..................Min Yao

Photo Editor.................John Wicart

Publisher..................Judith S. SiegelExecutive Editor......................Guy E. Olson

Production Manager.................Christian LarsonAssistant Production Manager.........................Sylvia Scott

Editorial Board

George Clack Kathleen R. Davis Francis B. Ward

The Bureau of International Information Programs of the U.S.Department of State publishes five electronic journalsEconomicPerspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda,and U.S. Society & Valuesthat examine major issues facing the United

States and the international community as well as U.S. society, values,thought, and institutions. Each of the five is catalogued by volume (thenumber of years in publication) and by number (the number of issuesthat appear during the year).

One new journal is published monthly in English and is followed two tofour weeks later by versions in French, Portuguese, and Spanish. Selectededitions also appear in Arabic and Russian.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect theviews or policies of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Stateassumes no responsibility for the content and continued accessibility ofInternet sites to which the journals link; such responsibility resides solely

with the publishers of those sites. Journal articles, photographs, andillustrations may be reproduced and translated outside the United Statesunless they carry explicit copyright restrictions, in which case permission

must be sought from the copyright holders noted in the journal.

The Bureau of International Information Programs maintains currentand back issues in several electronic formats, as well as a list of upcoming

journals, at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm. Commentsare welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorial offices:

Editor, eJournal USA: Issues of DemocarcyIIP/T/DHRU.S. Department of State301 4th St. S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20547United States of AmericaE-mail: [email protected]

ISSUES OF DEMOCRACY


3/40

The United States is in the midst of a newelection season, and candidates arecrisscrossing the country. Campaign signs

are sprouting up in front yards and adorning carbumpers. Volunteers are appearing at grocerystores and train stations, offering to help peoplewith last-minute voter registration. Serious,sometimes heated, conversations are taking placewith increasing frequency about which candidatewill lead the country down a better road.

Most Americans follow a presidential electioncampaign through the newspaper or on thenightly television news or their favorite radio talkshow or Internet Website. Relatively few citizenshave the experience of meeting the candidates inperson at campaign rallies unless they live in ahotly contested stateone of the so-calledbattleground states. Those who doespecially incommunities with a lot of undecided votersarelikely to have several opportunities to seecandidates throughout the campaign season.

Those who live in communities that consistentlyvote for Republicans or Democrats are not likelyto see candidates from either party.

The presidential election campaign of 2004 is noexception to these patterns. As the November 2election day approaches, media coverage isintensifying and the candidates are sharpeningtheir differences on the issues. President GeorgeBush and Senator John Kerry are traveling aroundthe country addressing crowds of potentialsupporters, particularly in battleground statessuch as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Mexico.The two candidates scheduled three nationallytelevised debates to bring the issues into clearerfocus for voters. What seems to concernAmericans most in the 2004 election, accordingto the polls, are security issues and the state of thedomestic economy, especially jobs.

This journal provides a broad look at theelectionsthe influential forces at work, thepositions of the two major parties, and votingprocedures in the United States. The first sectionexamines six important factors that affect theelection: the need to win enough states to carrythe Electoral College, the various ethnic anddemographic voting groups, the significance ofelections for the U.S. Senate and House ofRepresentatives, the evolving regulations

governing the financing of campaigns, the role ofthe media and political advertising, and theimpact of third party candidates. Each segmentcombines background information withcommentary by an expert on how they see thesubject playing out in the 2004 campaign.

The second section compares the Republican andDemocratic party platforms, which state theirofficial positions on a range of policy issues. Twopolitical activists, one from each party, giveoverviews of their partys positions on several key

topics. Then excerpts from both platforms arecontrasted in a side-by-side format.

The final section looks at some of the mechanicsof U.S. elections, including the Electoral College,polling places, voting machines, and ballots.

Americans are fond of arguing about theirelectoral systemwhether the Electoral Collegeshould be scrapped, how to control the amountof money that is spent on campaigns, what kindof voting machines are easiest for citizens to use.

Each election cycle brings its own complaints,adjustments, and reforms, and discussions beginon how it should be done the next time. Still, thesystem has served the country through thepeaceful transfer of presidential power for morethan 200 years and remains a model of Americandemocracy in action.

The Editors

About This Issue

Issues of Democracy h October 2004eJournal USA


4/40

Whats in Play

Winning the States

Because the president and vice president are selectedby winner-take-all Electoral College votes in eachstate, and not by the national popular vote,candidates focus on winning strategic state contests.

Expert Commentary: Charlie Cook, Editor and Publisher of

theCook Political Report

The Split Electorate

Polls indicate that American voters support the twomajor presidential candidates in nearly equalnumbers. The small number of undecided or swingvoters may be key to the elections outcome.

Expert Commentary: John Zogby, President and Chief

Executive Officer, Zogby International

Congressional Elections

Control of Congress is important to a partyslegislative agenda. A number of races for the Senateand House of Representatives are hotly contestedthis year.

Expert Commentary: Thomas E. Mann, W. Averell

Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow, The Brookings

Institution

Financing the Campaigns

The McCain-Feingold Law banned soft money, butthe emergence of 527 committees represents a newavenue for large contributors.

Expert Commentary: Jan Baran, Partner, Wiley, Rein &

Fielding LLP, Washington, D.C.

The Mass Media

American voters obtain most of their informationabout candidates and their positions from the massmedia. The quality of campaign coverage and thetone of political ads are important factors in theelection.

Expert Commentary: Montague Kern, Associate Professor in

the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Rutgers

University

Third Parties

Despite the dominance of the Republican andDemocratic parties, third parties often affect theoutcome of U.S. elections. Ralph Nader is the onlythird-party candidate in 2004 that might have ameasurable impact.

Expert Commentary: L. Sandy Maisel, William R. Kenan,

Jr., Professor of Government, Colby College

Democracy and Human Rights h October 2004 eJournal USA

Issues o f DemocracyU.S. Department of State October 2004 Volume 9 Number 3

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm

CONTENTS

Elections Guide 2004

4

7

10

14

17

20


5/40

eJournal USA Issues of Democracy h October 2004

29

30

32

33

34

3628

26

23

How It Happens

Voting Day

What Americans do when they go to the polls.

Voting Technology

The ways in which Americans cast their votes arechanging.

Ballots

Not only the names of candidates appear on anAmerican ballot.

The Electoral College

How the Electoral College elects the president andvice president.

Bibliography

Internet Resources

Where They Stand

Platform Positions

Along with a candidates personal appeal and partyaffiliation, a partys positions on the issues aredeciding factors for voters. Here is a comparison ofexcerpts from the two major party platforms on keypoints with an overview of each by two experiencedparty activists.

Expert Commentary: Republican Tucker Eskew, formerDeputy Assistant to the President in the White House Officeof Communications and President of Eskew Strategies, andDemocrat Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to

Morocco, Chief Executive Officer of Northstar Equity Group,and Chairman, Alliance for American Leadership.

Platform Excerpts

A chart of excerpts from their platforms reveals wherethe Republicans and Democrats stand on majorissues.

Debating the Issues

Televised debates between the candidates havebecome one of the most anticipated and influentialaspects of the presidential campaign.


6/40

4 Democracy and Human Rights h October 2004 eJournal USA

On Election Day, when American voters mark

their ballots for their favorite presidentialcandidate, they are, in actuality, voting for agroup of state electors. These electors are pledged to votefor that presidential candidate in the Electoral College,the body of representatives that really elects the presidentand vice president.

Set up in the early days of the republic, the ElectoralCollege currently has 538 members. Each state isrepresented by electors in equal number to the number ofsenators and representatives that represent that state inCongress. The District of Columbia, which has no voting

representation in Congress, nevertheless has threeelectoral votes. The candidate who wins the presidency isthe one who receives an absolute majority (at least 270)of the electoral votes.

Under this electoral system, it is possible to win thepresidency without winning the popular vote. Thishappened most recently in 2000, but it has also happenedthree other times in the history of the United States. This

anomaly occurs because nearly all the states use awinner-take-all system so that whichever candidate winsthe popular vote in that state gets all its electors in theElectoral College. The only exceptions are the states ofMaine and Nebraska, where two electors are chosen bystatewide popular vote and the remainder by the popularvote within each congressional district.

Consequently, political parties must consider each state tobe a separate race, keeping in mind that it is not thenational total of votes that counts; its how many electoralvotes a candidate receives that will determine who goes tothe White House. Candidates must run both a national

campaign in which their messages are carried by thecountrys mass media, but they must also run moretargeted state races that address local and regional issuesand concerns.

Above left: President George Bush greets supporters at an August 6 campaignstop in Stratham, New Hampshire. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) Above right:Supporters welcome Senator John Kerry at a September 21 rally in Orlando,Florida. (AP Photo/Peter Cosgrove)

Winning the StatesThe campaign for the presidency focuses more heavily on some states than on others because

the U.S. Constitution prescribes the use of an Electoral College instead of a directpopular vote. This article explains how that system works, and the subsequent commentary

by Charlie Cook looks at the numbers in this years election. Cook is the editor andpublisher of theCook Political Report.


7/40

Many states, by virtue of their demographics or economicprofile, will predictably favor a certain candidate or party.In recent years, there has been a wide discussion of so-called red and blue states, states that have tended to votein majority for Republicans (red) or Democrats (blue).The maps illustrating these distinctions show most bluestates along the coasts and most red states in the southand center of the country. Those states that are too hardto predictknown as battleground or swing statestendto be the focus of many of the resources of bothcampaigns.

Battleground states, where the candidates are currentlyrunning within a few percentage points of each other, canchange from election to election or even during a singleelection season. The general agreement among experts is

that in 2004 there are 10 battleground states: Florida,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire,New Mexico, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.Together, these 10 states represent 116 of the 270electoral votes needed to win.

Campaign strategists must calculate how much time andmoney a candidate needs to spend in any given state inorder to have the best chance of winning. In 2004,President George Bush and Senator John Kerry havemade numerous visits to battleground states likePennsylvania and Ohio during the campaign. In addition

to the presidential candidates themselves, their vicepresidential running mates, family members, and othersurrogates such as popular local politicians have madespeeches on behalf of the campaigns in the various states.In a close race, voter turnout is decisive, so bothcampaigns organize get-out-the-vote efforts to identifysupporters and either get them to the polls on ElectionDay or encourage them to vote earlier by mailing inabsentee ballots. Both parties also have active voterregistration programs aimed especially at communitieslikely to favor their candidates.

Influence of the Electoral CollegeCommentary by Charlie Cook

If the United States had one big national election, withthe popular vote winner elected president, the candidateswould focus all of their campaign activities on the majorcities, not mounting a truly national campaign, withsmaller states completely ignored.

The Electoral College system was set up to create 51 (50states plus the District of Columbia) separate contests,with the battleground states in this election as diverse asNew Hampshire in the Northeast, New Mexico andNevada in the Southwest and Florida in the Southeast(all three states with substantial Hispanic populations),and industrial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, as wellas more diverse states with large agricultural populationslike Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

This system also forces candidates to engage in moreretail campaigning, making appearances in fairly smallcities and towns, something that would absolutely not be

the case if it were one national election. This systemtakes the campaign out of being a purely television affairand forces an interaction with voters in smaller settings.

Above: Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at a September 20 rally in GroveCity, Ohio. (AP Photo/Jay Laprete)

5Issues of Democracy h October 2004eJournal USA


8/40

Current State of Play

There are currently 24 states, totaling 208 electoral votes,in the likely and solid columns for President GeorgeBush. They are: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10),Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11),Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6),Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), NorthCarolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), SouthCarolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas(34), Virginia (13), Utah (5), and Wyoming (3).

There are 13 states either likely or certainly going toSenator John Kerry, with a total of 179 electoral votes.They are: California (55), Connecticut (7), the District ofColumbia (3), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21),

Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New Jersey (15),New York (31), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), andWashington (11).

There are currently three states that lean toward Kerryand have a total of 28 electoral votes: Maine (4),Michigan (17), and Oregon (7).

Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia voting onNovember 2, there are currently 11 states, with 123electoral votes, that are too close to call. They are:Colorado (9), Florida (27), Iowa (7), Minnesota (10),

Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio(20), Pennsylvania (21), West Virginia (5), and Wisconsin(10). A candidate must have a total of 270 votes to winthe Electoral College and, thus, the election.

Going into the first debate, major polls showed Bush tobe between three and eight points (most likely six points)ahead of Kerry nationwide, and an average of four pointsahead in the closest states. Bush was ahead by verynarrow margins in seven or eight of the states that are tooclose to call.

Following the first and second debates, new polls had thecandidates in a statistical dead heat, that is, neither hada clear lead over the other.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or

policies of the U.S. government.



9/40

With a voting age population of more than 200million, the United States has a diverseelectorate. In recent years, the media have

divided the country into red and blue states to showvoting preferences on national issues: red for Republicanand blue for Democrat. But this is an oversimplificationof Americas political landscape. It does not, for example,show how close political races within those states can be.Although the winning candidate generally receives all of astates electoral votes, nearly half of the voters in any redor blue state may have voted for the opponent. In the2000 election, there were 14 states in which fewer than

five percentage points separated the winning and losingcandidates. A small shift in votes in a state where votersare almost evenly divided, then, can swing an election.

Political campaigns focus their efforts on two groups ofvoters: those who already support themthe partysbaseand those who can be persuaded to supportthem, the swing voters.

Both parties conduct polls to identify which voters mightbe won over to their side of the ballot. Throughout thecampaign, pollsters seek out information on voterslifestyles, their attitudes on issues, and their preferencesfor president. The campaigns use this information to planstrategies for reaching undecided and independent voters;the media use the data to present a picture of how therace for the White House is going and to predict thewinner.

Experts agree that the strongest influence on voterbehavior is party identification. Currently, American

voters identify themselves in roughly equal numbers asRepublicans, Democrats, or independents unaffiliatedwith either of the major parties. Although studies suggestthat independents actually tend to vote consistently for

Above left: President Bush answers voters questions at an Ask President Bushsession in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on August 11. (AP Photo/Pablo

Martinez Monsivais) Above right: Senator Kerry greets supporters at a rally inSanta Fe, New Mexico, on October 11. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)


The Split Electorate

With American voters almost evenly divided between the two major candidates for president,the campaigns and the media focus on undecided voters who could swing the election either

way. This article outlines the make-up of the electorate; John Zogbys commentary looks at thevoting behavior of certain groups of people. Zogby is president and chief executive officer of

Zogby International, a public opinion polling firm.


10/40

one partys candidates over the other, still, a number ofthese voters will realign themselves when they feel thereare serious problems in the country or in theircommunity that are not being adequately addressed. It isthis portion of the unpredictable electorate, about 10percent of all voters, that candidates target most heavily,tailoring their campaign messages to what pollsters havedetermined are most likely to be persuasive.

There are, in fact, some regional voter characteristics: theresidents of Pacific coast states and the northeastern statestend to be more liberal on social and economic issues,while those in the South tend to be more conservative;swing states tend to be those with a balance of both ruraland large urban areas. But because of the mobility ofAmericans (each year nearly one-fifth of the U.S.

population moves), the influx of immigrants who becomevoters, and the influence of the national media, votingpatterns change from election to election.

For example, following World War II, Florida was aresolutely conservative Republican state, only three timesawarding its electoral votes to a Democratic presidentialcandidate. But in the past decade, thousands of retireesfrom northern cities have moved there, and its African-American and non-Cuban Hispanic populations havedoubled. These groups traditionally support Democraticcandidates, and, as the 2000 election showed, Florida is

now an important swing state.

Looking beyond regional voting history, pollsters findmore accurate indicators of how a citizen will cast his orher vote by looking at age, gender, education level,income, ethnicity, and other demographic characteristicsthat affect political opinions. Persons who identifythemselves as evangelical Christians, for example, aremore likely to vote Republican; college educated womenare more likely to be liberal on social issues; affluentmales are more likely to be economically conservative.

Voting Blocs to Watch

Commentary by John Zogby

This electionlike many before itwill be decided by ahandful of groups. Expect Hispanics, African-Americans,Catholics, young voters, and rural and suburban voters allto influence the race for the White House. Add the factthat these groups impact heavily only in battlegroundstates, and you glimpse which groups hold the keys topower in 2004.

Three groups favor Democrat John Kerry over Repub-lican George W. Bush by lopsided margins: African-

Americans, Hispanics, and young voters. Among thosegroups, the real race isnt about winning them over, butabout getting them to the pollshigh voter turnout isthe key for a Democratic win; if there is low turnoutamong these groups, the Republicans will be in office forfour more years.

The race promises a political street fight in 20 swingstates. There, suburban voters are the real battleground:among suburbanites, Bush leads Kerry.

Hispanics will be the most closely watched demographic

this election. Bush heavily courted Hispanics during histerm. He did this for good reason: in 2000, Hispanicspassed African-Americans as the largest minority group inthe United States. Hispanics represented just 7 percent ofthe 2000 vote, a number expected to increase in thiselection.

Above: Senator John Edwards (second from left), the Democratic vicepresidential candidate, talks with a McAdenville, North Carolina, familyduring an August 22 neighborhood visit. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)



11/40

The African-American vote is critical for Democrats.African-Americans supported Democrat Al Gore by anine to one margin in 2000, and they will support Kerryby a similar margin. High African-American turnout can

sway the race Kerrys way in Florida, Michigan, Missouri,North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, andVirginia.

White Evangelical Christians are a key constituency thatfavors the Republican Party. A number of Bush admin-istration initiatives reflecting conservative social andcultural values elicit strong support from this group.Some Republican strategists have claimed that the nearlyfour million white Evangelicals who did not vote in the2000 election cost Bush the popular vote. Whether or notthat number is accurate, Republicans want to maximize

the turnout of Evangelicals at the polls in 2004.

Catholic voters have become one of the top swing groupslargely because they are a bellwether that votes the waythe nation votes. In 2000, Gore won among Catholics bytwo points. Since then, Bush has courted Catholicsagroup that matters in nearly every swing state. Despitebeing Catholic himself, Kerry currently trails Bush. Onlyin swing states Arkansas, North Carolina, Oregon,Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia doCatholics not comprise at least one-quarter of voters.

Rural voterskey to former President Bill Clintonsvictorieswill be a critical group. Kerry is trying to reachrural voters through economic messages, and many ruralvoters live in areas hard-hit by the recession.

Young voters may also prove important in this election.They have been heavily targeted by nonpartisan groupslike Rock the Vote and partisans like filmmaker MichaelMoore. In 2000, Gore edged out Bush by 48 to 46percent, and at the time of this writing, Kerry appearedto have a solid lead over Bush.

None of this means that a late surge by one candidate, orthe emergence of an unexpected trend, cant shift the race;however, as it stands today, expect strategy in both campsto focus on these constituencies in the remaining daysbefore November 2.





12/40

Senator James Jeffords of Vermont left the RepublicanParty to become an unaffiliated independent, thusremoving formal control from the Republicans. ForDemocrat Bill Clinton, president from 1993 to 2001, itmeant continually adapting his legislative proposals togain the support of the opposition party controllingCongress; for Republican President George Bush, it hasmeant a somewhat freer hand to implement his agenda.

The entire House of Representatives, in which the size ofa states delegation is determined by its population, is upfor election every two years. Representation in the Senate,on the other hand, is equal for all stateseach has twosenators, elected for six-year terms; only a third of itsmembers are up for election in any two-year electioncycle. The vice president holds the tie-breaking vote inSenate deliberations.

Redistricting is also a factor in congressional elections.Because the House of Representatives is based on state

population, congressional districts in each state areusually redrawn according to the population informationobtained in the U.S. census conducted every 10 years.The party holding the majority of seats in each stateslegislature at that time controls the redistricting processand often uses that power to draw the new district linesin ways that favor its candidates. This is known asgerrymandering.


Congressional Elections

Because each of the three branches of the Americangovernmentexecutive, legislative, and judicialis an equal force in the U.S. system of checks and

balances, whether the Republicans or Democrats controlthe houses of Congress is of vital importance.

Although the president sets the political agenda for thecountry, Congress has an enormous influence on whetheror not an administration can accomplish its goals. Thehouses of Congress alone have the power to passlegislation; approve or deny appointments of cabinetdepartment executives, ambassadors, and judges; provideoversight ofand investigategovernment agencies;ratify treaties; regulate commerce; control taxation andspending policies; declare war; and approve funding forthe military.

The terms under which the debate on any issue takesplace are controlled by the majority party in each houseof Congress, because the majority party controls the

leadership and membership of the various congressionalcommittees.

Since the November 1994 midterm elections (themidpoint in a presidents four-year term of office), theRepublican Party has controlled the House ofRepresentatives. The same is true for the Senate, exceptfor a five-month period in 2001 when Republican

Every two years, Americans elect the entire House of Representatives and one-thirdof the Senate. The two major political parties each seek to gain the majority

of seats in both houses of Congress so that they can more easily advance their legislativeagendas. Our article takes a look at the process and is then followed by analysis from

political expert Thomas E. Mann, who assesses prospects for Republicans andDemocrats in this years congressional elections. Mann is W. Averell Harriman chair

and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.


13/40

eJournal USA

With control of Congress being so vital to enacting theparty platform, the political parties necessarily targetHouse and Senate races much as they do presidentialraces, concentrating on potential voters in swingcongressional states or districts where elections are soclose they could go to either party. Both parties hopetheir candidates will have coattailsthe ability to enticevoters who, because they are enthusiastic about a certain

candidate, will vote for the same partys candidates inother races.

Currently, the composition of the Senate is 51 Repub-licans, 48 Democrats, and one independent who tends tovote with the Democrats; and the Republicans have a 229to 205 majority over the Democrats, with oneindependent member, in the 435-member House. Even asmall shift in these seats in the 2004 general election willhave a large impact on the ability of the next president tocarry out his promised action plan for America.

Above: Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (second from left) and her familygreet supporters after winning the Republican nomination for the Senate fromAlaska on August 24. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)

This Years ContestCommentary by Thomas E. Mann

Democratic Party prospects for gaining majoritycontrol of the Senate and House now restimportantly on the performance of its

presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry. The increase

in straight-ticket party voting in recent years means thatcompetitive congressional races can tip one way or theother depending on the showing of the candidates at thetop of the ticket. A comfortable win by Kerry could wellprovide the margin of victory in several hotly contestedSenate races sufficient to enable the Democrats to win avery narrow majority, while a Bush victory makes it morelikely that the Republicans will retain or increase their51-seat majority. Democrats face much longer odds inregaining control of the House. To overtake theRepublicans, they need to pick up just 13 additional seatsin a 435-seat chamber. However, the historically smallnumber of genuinely competitive races (about threedozen seats, half of which are now held by Democrats)means they probably need a Kerry landslide to move backinto the majority.

11Issues of Democracy h October 2004


14/40

Apart from the presidential contest, Republicans have anadvantage in the Senate because they are defending fewerseats in more hospitable territory. The competitive terrain

in the Senate is limited

to 10 of the 34 stateswith elections this cycle,only two of which featureseriously threatenedincumbents. MinorityLeader Tom Daschle ofSouth Dakota is lockedin a tight battle withformer RepublicanCongressman John

Thune. And Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, appointedby her father, Governor Frank Murkowski, to fill his

unexpired term in the Senate, faces a very strongchallenge from former Democratic Governor TonyKnowles. Democrats must defend five seats in the Southwhere their incumbents have decided to retire: Florida,Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Louisiana.The Republican candidate is heavily favored in Georgia;Democrats have strong candidates in the four other racesbut must compete mostly on unfavorable partisan terrain.Republicans are defending open seats in Illinois,Oklahoma, and Colorado. Democrat Barack Obama,who was the keynote speaker at the Democraticconvention, is certain to win in Illinois but the others aretoo close to call.

In the House, Republican prospects have been buoyed byseveral successful rounds of redistricting, which havesharply reduced the number of competitive seats andgiven the Republicans a national advantage of at least adozen seats. The recent mid-decade partisan gerrymanderin Texas orchestrated by House Majority Leader TomDeLay was drawn to give the Republicans an additionalhalf-dozen seats. Absent a strong national tide, they canbe expected to hold or modestly increase their present

majority.

If George Bush is reelected, he will likely work again withslender Republican majorities in the Senate and House,enough to control the agenda but not enough tooutmuscle filibusters (lengthy speeches aimed at delaying

action on legislation) in the Senate or restiveness amongRepublican moderates in the House. His ambitiousagenda for building an ownership society at home andspreading freedom and democracy around the worldcould face some obstacles on Capitol Hill.

If John Kerry isvictorious, he will likelyface a House andpossibly also a Senatecontrolled by theRepublicans. He would

be forced to deal withRepublicans in bothchambers, which wouldentail substantial changesin the proposals he ischampioning in thecampaign. But dividedparty government ismore the norm than the

exception in contemporary American politics, and theevidence suggests that such governments are moreproductive and enact more sustainable policies thanmight be expected.



Above left: Republican Senate candidate John Thune answers a questionduring an August 18 debate in Mitchell, South Dakota. (AP Photo/DougDreyer) Above: Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama waves tothe crowd at the Illinois State Fair in Springfield on August 18.(AP photo/Seth Perlman)



15/40


Florida

Louisiana

North Carolina

South Dakota

Alaska

Colorado

Illinois

Oklahoma

Betty Castor (D)

Mel Martinez (R)

Chris John (D)

John Kennedy (D)

Arthur Morrell (D)

David Vitter (R)

Erskine Bowles (D)Richard Burr (R)

Tom Daschle (D)*

John Thune (R)

Tony Knowles (D)

Lisa Murkowski (R)*

Ken Salazar (D)

Pete Coors (R)

Barack Obama (D)Alan Keyes (R)

Brad Carson (D)

Tom Coburn (R)

Floridas decisive role in the 2000

presidential elections has brought

substantial resources and attention from both

national parties

Open-seat contest, with a runoff for the top

two finishers if no candidate receives over

50 percent of the vote

Incumbent John Edwards vicepresidential candidacy leaves this seat open

Senate minority leader Daschle, the only

Democratic incumbent whose reelection is

uncertain, faces a tough challenge from

former Congressman Thune

Murkowski, appointed to the Senate by her

father, seeks election against former

Governor Knowles

State Attorney General Salazar and brewery

magnate Coors overcame tough primaries to

be their parties candidates

This historic match is the first Senate racebetween two African-American candidates

in U.S. history

Congressman Carson and former

Congressman Coburn are both

experienced lawmakers

Other states where a Democratic seat is up for election: South Carolina, Georgia, Washington, California, Wisconsin, Arkansas,

Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont

Other states where a Republican seat is up for election: Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,

New Hampshire, Ohio, Utah

* Incumbent up for reelection

Democratic-held States: Races to Watch

Republican-held States: Races to Watch

Senate Races to Watch

STATE CANDIDATES COMMENT

STATE CANDIDATES COMMENT


16/40


The high cost of political campaigns in the UnitedStates is a widely discussed issue. Efforts tocontrol those costs by limiting how much money

a donor can contribute and the ways in which candidatesand parties can spend it have met with varying degrees ofsuccess.

In 1971, the government created a fund that offerspresidential candidates public financing for theircampaignspublic money provided by citizens throughvoluntary contributions from their income taxes. Acandidate who accepts public funds must agree to a

spending cap, and he is prohibited from raising orspending any private funds once he accepts his partysnomination. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry, likeevery major presidential candidate since these funds firstbecame available in 1976, have opted to use this system.In the 2004 general election, then, each will be limited tospending about $76 million.

The Democratic and Republican parties, however, caneach spend another $16 million in coordination withtheir candidate and unlimited amounts on uncoordinatedactivities. And nonprofit interest groups can also engagein the process by running advertisements on particularissues that directly refer to the positions of individualcandidates. So even with the spending caps, the 2004presidential race is expected to be the most expensive inhistory. This year, experts estimate that the candidates,parties, and interest groups will spend about a billiondollars on advertising alone.

At the heart of the campaign finance debate are two keyissues: first, the concern that large contributions buywealthy individuals and organizations access to candidatesaccess that the average citizen doesnt haveand,

Financing the CampaignsThe United States has enacted laws to regulate the money spent

on federal election campaigns, yet concerns remain. This article gives anoverview of campaign finance; then attorney Jan Baran discusses changesmade by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Baran is a partnerin Wiley, Rein & Feingold LLP in Washington, D.C., and head of the

firms Election Law and Government Ethics Practice.

Above: Images from television advertisements for President Bush (left) andSenator Kerry. (AP Photos/Bush-Cheney 2004; Kerry-Edwards 2004)


17/40

through access, influence on policy; and second, thebelief that contributions toward a particular politicalideology are a form of free speech that is protected by theU.S. Constitution.

A 1974 attempt at reforming the influence of money inAmerican politics resulted in the creation of the FederalElection Commission (FEC), an independent,nonpartisan government agency. Its charge is to overseethe rules and regulations of the U.S. election process,

including the use of election funds and the disclosure ofnames of large financial contributors. The same law thatcreated the FEC also limited the amount any individualcould give and made contributions to candidates fromeither labor unions or corporations illegal.

The result was that many labor unions, corporations, andwealthy individuals redirected their contributions to thepolitical parties. These donations, which were by law notto be used for the candidates themselves but fornoncampaign purposes such as voter registration andissue support, are known as soft money. There were nolimits on what an individual or group could give in softmoney.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law theBipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also knownby the names of its Senate sponsors, McCain-Feingold. Itmade illegal the solicitation and use of all soft money forfederal campaigns and outlawed the broadcast ofadvocacy issue ads by outside groups within the last fewweeks of a federal election.

Interest groups responded by spending their soft dollarsthrough partisan 527 committees and 501c groupsthenames come from the section of the tax code thatdescribes themwhich took over many of the activitiespreviously handled by political parties, especially the

broadcasting of advocacy issue ads.

The courts recently ordered the FEC to more vigorouslyuphold the provisions of McCain-Feingold, and reformersin Congress have promised to introduce new legislationto make outside political groups more accountable; butnone of these changes will be in place in time to affectthis years election.

BCRA in PracticeCommentary by Jan Baran

The 2004 presidential election is the first conductedunder the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA),which is popularly referred to as McCain-Feingold.BCRA changed the rules on campaign financing inseveral major ways. First and foremost, it barred largedonations and corporate or union donations to nationalpolitical parties. These funds were often called softmoney. In the 2000 campaign, the Republican andDemocratic party committees collectively raised andspent almost $500 million in soft money.

The second major provision in BCRA raised the limits onthe amount that could be contributed by individuals tocandidates and political parties. This source of funds iscalled hard money. Some of the limits were doubledfrom those first established in 1974. For example, BCRAincreased from $1,000 to $2,000 the amount that anyindividual may donate to a candidate for president,senator, or representative. This limit applies perelection, which means that primary and general electionsare treated separately and a donor, therefore, could give asmuch as $4,000 to one candidate in one election year.

The ban on soft money and the increased limits on hardmoney have profoundly affected the way money hasfunctioned in the 2004 campaigns. Candidates discoveredthat they were able to raise significantly more than in thepast. For example, both President Bush and SenatorKerry have broken fundraising records. In 2000, thenGovernor Bush raised approximately $100 million duringhis primary campaign, a previously unheard of sum.Under BCRA and the higher limit, the Bush-Cheneycommittee through August 2004 raised an astounding$260 million. Also impressive is the performance of

Senator Kerry who raised over $230 million. However,during the general election campaign, the two nomineeswill receive and spend only money provided by the U.S.Treasury under the public financing system and will raiseno additional private monies. This year both candidatesreceived $74.62 million.

Political party committees, which also operate underhigher hard money limits, similarly have raised moremoney this cycle. In fact, some of the committees have



18/40

raised more hard money than the combined hard and softmoney that they raised in 2000. Nonetheless, they arebarred from accepting soft money. Where did that softmoney go? Many observers argue that money fromwealthy individuals, corporations, and unions now aredonated to so-called 527 organizations. These are groupsnamed after a provision of the tax code that provides tax-exempt status to political organizations. A 527organization can avoid hard money limits, and thereforeneed not comply with federal campaign finance legalrestrictions, if it does not make contributions tocandidates and limits its activities to issue advertising orto nonfederal races. Thus far in the 2004 election cycle,527 organizations have raised approximately $300million. The largest contributors to these groups tendto be individuals. Two people have by themselves

given over $27 million to 527s in order to finance adscritical of President Bush. Information about 527s isavailable on the Internet at various sites, includingwww.opensecrets.org.

Some 527 committees have dramatically influenced thepresidential race. For example, a group called SwiftboatVeterans for Truth sponsored television ads attackingSenator Kerry for his Vietnam antiwar activities andquestioned the basis for some military honors that heearned while in service. The ads were controversial andcontroverted by the Kerry campaign. Nonetheless, the ads

sparked a weeks-long debate about the senators Vietnamrecord and diverted attention from other campaign issues.

The rise of 527 organizations has prompted bothSenators John McCain and Russ Feingold to call for morereforms. They have introduced legislation that would ineffect ban soft money from 527s. They also haveintroduced legislation to change the composition of theFEC and to give it greater enforcement powers. Even asthe 2004 election is yet to be decided, it appears thatfuture reforms are likely and that the 2008 election willbe governed by an even different set of campaign finance

rules.





19/40

It would be hard to overestimate the importance ofmass media in the U.S. electoral process. Nationaltelevision networks reach 99 percent of all American

homes, making contact across the entire socioeconomicspectrum. Cable news stations, radio and television talkshows, newspapers, news magazines, and Internet sites allprovide voters with information about the candidates.The content and emphasis of their coverage are amongthe most powerful factors in determining how votersperceive the candidates and the issues.

Studies have shown that broadcast media devote most oftheir coverage to the competition between the candidatesrather than providing an explanation of issues and thecandidates stances on them. Eager to attract viewers,broadcasters focus on dramatic moments that highlightcandidates mistakes, attacks on opponents, andsuggestions of scandal or problems.

Even when the media do provide campaign coverage, thecandidates may not get much direct airtime. In anacademic study of major-network coverage of the 2000elections, it was found that the news reporters talked for74 percent of the time; only 12 percent of the time didviewers hear the actual candidates voices and, when theydid, the sound bite averaged only 7.8 seconds.

As a way of communicating more directly with voters,candidates buy television and radio advertising time. In

the 2000 presidential election, the two major-partycandidates spent $285 million with about 60 percent of itgoing to advertising. The high cost of reaching votersrequires the campaigns to concentrate their ad buys inareas where they believe they have a chance of affectingundecided voters opinionsresulting in the residents ofsome media regions being bombarded with political adsand others having little exposure to them.


The Mass MediaAs in the past, Americans are receiving information about political campaigns

through media coverage of the candidates and through television and radioadvertising. Meanwhile, the Internet has begun to play an influential role. This

article looks at the impact of the media on voters; it is followed byanalytic commentary from Montague Kern, associate professor in the Department

of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University inNew Brunswick, New Jersey.


20/40

The 2004 election is the first in which the Internet hasplayed a significant role as a medium for campaigningand for raising money. Former presidential hopefulHoward Dean, governor of the small state of Vermont,

used his Website to form a network of thousands ofenthusiastic volunteers. Before dropping out of the race,Dean raised more money than his opponents in theDemocratic primaries and received favorable mediacoverage for demonstrating the political power of theInternet.

The other candidates in the race followed Deans lead andmade good use of the Internet. President Bush(www.georgewbush.com) and Senator Kerry(www.johnkerry.com) have elaborate Websites, wherethey promote their agendas and attempt to refute their

opponents campaign messages.

Candidates also try to make news that they hope themedia will cover. This might be the announcement of anew plan on an issue of interest to voters or anappearance at a symbolic location. An incumbentpresident has an advantage here, because what thepresident does always makes newswhether it is aceremonial bill signing, a meeting with a foreign head ofstate, or a visit to an area where a natural disaster hasoccurred.

Academic studies indicate that most voters tend to seekout and believe information that reinforces beliefs thatthey already hold. They tune in to broadcasters whopresent a political viewpoint similar to their own. Two-thirds of the electoratea figure that coincides with thenumber of voters who identify with a particular partysays that they have made up their minds beforecampaigning even begins.

The relatively small percentage of so-called swing voterswhose minds are not made up are the ones on whom

media coverage and campaign ads have the most effect.Campaign media strategies, however, are not entirelydesigned with swing voters in mind. It is also importantfor parties to maintain strong support among theirtraditional supporters, known as their base, and pursue anational media campaign as well those tailored forregional audiences.

In recent years, a controversy has developed around exitpolling, the medias practice of asking voters as they

depart a polling place how they voted and then using thisinformation, often based on very small percentages, topredict a winner. While the exit polling results, generally,have proven to be fairly accurate, states on the West

Coast, where voting places close hours after those on theEast Coast, complain that early predictions influencethose who have not yet cast their ballots.

Finally, in 2004 another medium not usually associatedwith political campaigns entered the fray: motionpictures. A documentary-style, feature-length filmreleased in June criticized the Bush administrationsactions in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terroristattacks. In September, another motion picture meant tocounter the claims of the first appeared in U.S. movietheaters. Whether such films will be partisan tools in

future election years remains to be seen, but this year, atleast, they were clearly part of the media mix.

Previous page, left: A television advertisement, released September 20, addressesPresident Bushs stance on terrorism. (AP Photo/Bush-Cheney 2004)Previous page, right: A television advertisement employs images of Senator Kerryduring the Vietnam War to counter claims that he lied about his service record.(AP Photo/Kerry-Edwards 2004) Top: President Bush hands water tohurricane victims in Fort Pierce, Florida, on September 8. (AP Photo/CharlesDharapak) Above: Senator Kerry makes a statement to the press in Erlanger,Kentucky, on September 7. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)



21/40

Advertising and Polling As NewsCommentary by Montague Kern

Political advertising plays a very important role in U.S.

elections. Research has confirmed that advertising over-powers news, four to one, as a source of voter informa-tion. So-called attack ads play a particularly importantrole in elections, since they are reported in the news morefrequently than positive ads and because they tend tostimulate conflict, which also is considered newsworthy.

During the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries,however, there was reluctance on the part of candidates toattack their opponents personally. Howard Dean was thelone candidate to issue straight talk ads. He lookedvoters in the eye and critiqued the Iraq War, President

George W. Bush, and fellow Democratic candidates.Negative advertising has never been popular with thepublic, but voters pay attention. Ads can set campaignagendas and influence voters, particularly in the absenceof prior partisanship, experience, or political knowledge.

Howard Dean challenged traditional media andconducted the first Internet campaign in an effort toreach out directly to voters. At the time, the press andmany researchers thought that the emergence of theInternet would primarily benefit liberals like Dean. Thishas not proven to be the case as the 2004 election hasworn on. Conservatives and Republicans clearly areequally, if not more significantly, present in the newmedium. Internet influentials (a name that emergedfollowing polling concerning their demographic) haveforced the press to pay attention, most recently in regardto a news story that aired in mid-September. A majortelevision network had reported on documentsconcerning President Bushs National Guard service,documents that cast the president in a negative light.Some individuals who post personal journalscommonlycalled blogs, a contraction of Web logson the Internet

immediately challenged the authenticity of thedocuments. Subsequent investigation revealed themalmost certainly to have been forged. The networkacknowledged it had failed to sufficiently examine thedocuments and apologized to the public for its failure toadhere to accepted journalistic standards.

During the primaries, John Kerrys positive campaign adswere coordinated with a traditional ground campaign ofpersonal appearances that focused exclusively on Iowa,

where the primary season kicks off. The Kerry ads were ofgood quality, but they received little national pressattention. Thus, Kerry emerged from the primaries as anunknown quantity whose persona was to be filled in by

news coverage that focused on his failure to attack hisopponent in the general election, President Bush, and hislack of a strong showing in public opinion polls.

The news media also picked up on the Bush campaignsassertion that Kerry is a flip flopper, someone whooften changes his position. Commentators pointed outthat Kerry failed to respond to ads that questioned hisrecord. Although the impact of the ads is still underscrutiny, it is clear that one ad campaign did have a majoreffect, thanks to its proliferation on the Internet andcable news networks, despite doubts about its veracity.

The ad charged that John Kerry did not deserve themedals he received for bravery during service in theVietnam War. That ad and many others in this yearscampaign were created and funded by independentsupport groups rather than by the Bush or Kerrycampaign organizations. Other examples include an admade by the Progress for America Voter Fund, which usesvisuals to link John Kerry to Osama Bin Laden, andMoveon.orgs Polygraph, which attacked George Bushsveracity during the buildup to the Iraq War.

Another important point concerning media and politicsthis year is that political campaigns are challenging theresults of public opinion polls conducted by newsorganizations, which fuel daily news coverage. Thecriticism comes from both the left and the right.According to the Wall Street Journal, in articles publishedin September, campaigns are challenging the way politicalpollsters develop their samples of voters. Polls target onlyregistered voters, failing to include the views ofnonregistered voters and thereby ignoring close to halfthe U.S. population, which has not registered and,indeed, has not voted in recent presidential elections.

This year, however, there is likely to be a significantincrease in voter turnout, thanks to a large effort toregister voters. And, it is the voters, rather than politicaladvertising or news coverage, that ultimately decide whowill be president of the United States.





22/40

Although the Republicans and Democratsdominate the American political landscape, thirdparties have a long and active history of

influencing U.S. presidential elections. In the 2000election, candidates of 12 other parties appeared on someor all state ballots. In the upcoming election, there areagain 12 third parties fielding candidates. Some, like theprohibition parties (primarily against the sale ofalcohol) and various socialist groups, garnered onlyenough voter support signatures to qualify for the ballotin a few states. Others, however, are on the ballot in morethan half of the 50 states: the Green Party, anenvironmentally concerned group (28); the ConstitutionParty, a Christian fundamentalist group (38); theLibertarian Party, a group that is fiscally conservative andsocially liberal (49); and the Independent/Reform Partycandidacy of Ralph Nader, a liberal reform group (37with qualifications for several additional statesundergoing judicial review).

It is extremely difficult for third parties to mount acredible challenge to the Republican and Democraticcandidates, however. The Electoral College process and

procedures for getting on the ballot, taking part indebates, and receiving government campaign funds allfavor the established parties.

In addition, third parties rarely have the large statewideorganizations of the major parties; they have less expertisein running campaigns; they get less media coverage. Sincethey are not already in power and less well known, theyfind it harder to raise money and, because extraordinarilylarge sums are needed to compete in U.S. nationwide

races, they have to spend more time fundraising thancampaigning on their issues. Still, some third-partycandidates are successful at the local and state level, andthere have been independent party representatives inCongress.

Third parties can, however, produce dramatic results.Their candidates can be spoilersin a close election,they can take away enough votes from a major-partycandidate that he loses a states popular vote and, hence,its electoral votes and, hence, the presidency. This hashappened several times in U.S. history. In 1912, formerpresident Teddy Roosevelts third-party candidacy tookmore than 27 percent and split the Republican vote,allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win thepresidency. In more recent times, George Wallace in 1968and Ross Perot in 1992 took significant percentages ofvoters from both major parties in the general election.Many people believe that the 2000 Nader campaign tookenough votes (2.8 million) away from Democraticcandidate Al Gore that he lost the Electoral Collegeelection to George W. Bush. For that reason, his repeatcandidacy in the 2004 election has been closely watched

by both major parties.


Third PartiesWhile a third-party candidate has yet to win a U.S. presidential election, a few have

had a significant impact on the results. This article looks at the obstaclesthird parties face, and L. Sandy Maisels commentary probes the case

of one third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. Maisel is the William R. Kenan, Jr.,professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.


23/40

The Nader CandidacyCommentary by L. Sandy Maisel

Context is everything in American politics. Third-party

candidates know this best of all and understand that inthis election the context has a number of different facets.I am going to focus on the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader.The quotation marks are used tohighlight that Nader does notrepresent any one third party, butrather is on the ballot in thosestates in which his name appearsunder varying labels. WhenAmericans talk of third partiestoday, they really mean candidates

other than those of theDemocratic or Republican party.

In choosing to focus on the Nader candidacy, I inten-tionally slight the Green Party candidate, Peter Cobb,under whose party banner Nader ran four years ago. Ialso slight the other candidates whose names appear onthe ballot in one or more states under various labels. I doso because I think their impact will be minimal. Whilethey might raise interesting issues, no one is listening tothem and almost no one will vote for them. But I mustadd a caveat: they are electorally irrelevant nationally tobe sure, but in any state that is as close as New Mexico orFlorida were in 2000, even a candidate receiving 0.5percent of the vote, if those votes otherwise would havegone to the losing candidate, could be relevant.

That fact highlights the first facet of the 2004 context.Many people feel that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the2000 election, because people who voted for Naderotherwise would have voted for Gore in certain pivotal,tightly contested states. The accuracy of this claim is lessrelevant than the perception that it is true. Because of

that perception Democrats have worked hard to keepNader (and other third-party candidates) off of the ballotwherever they could. Ballot access is controlled at thestate level in American elections, with each state havingseparate laws. At this writing, Naders name will appearon the ballot in 32 states; it is on the ballot but undercourt challenge in four others; it is not on the ballot butNader is seeking to gain ballot access in court in eightothers; and it will definitely not appear on the ballot inseven states. In 2000, Nader appeared on 43 state ballots.

The second facet is closely related. Even in those stateswhere Naders name appears, former supporters are leeryto support him, because they fear the same result thatoccurred in 2000, that is, by supporting their true

favorite, they swung the election to their least favorite.Again, perception is all that is important here.

Not only is the closeness of the2000 election fresh in many minds,but many pundits also arepredicting an extremely close 2004election. The relevant facet of thiscontext for third parties is thatwhether President Bush or SenatorKerry wins the presidency will bedetermined by how they do in the

nine or ten states that remain verycompetitive.

Voters in the states in which the contest is all but overcan vote for Ralph Nader without fear of affecting thefinal result. That is not true in the other states. Nader ison the ballot in at least six of the pivotal states, with achance to get on in two others. In polls in those states heis garnering about 2 percent of the vote. Generally athird-party candidates projected vote drops as an electionapproaches, particularly a close election. But it doesappear that in some statesNew Hampshire as oneexamplethe Nader vote could be more than the marginbetween the Bush and Kerry votes.

How then does one evaluate this role? Third parties are ata distinct disadvantage because of the American electoralsystem. Many voters recognize thisand whether theylike it or not, accept it. As a result, particularly in a closeelection like this one, third-party candidates, even promi-nent ones like Nader, poll relatively few votes. However,in an extremely close election, as was demon-strated in2000, even those small vote totals can be determinative.

If the margin between the two top candi-dates widens,third-party candidates like Nader will be electorallyirrelevant, but if that margin narrows, they could indeeddetermine who will be inaugurated as president inJanuary 2005.




Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaks ata February 23 news conference in Washington, D.C.(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)


24/40

Third-Party Presidential Candidates, 1832-1996


1996

1992

1980

1968

1924

1912

1912

1892

1860

1860

1856

1848

1832

Reform

Independent

Independent

American

Independent

Progressive

Progressive

(Bull Moose)

Socialist

Populist

Constitutional

Union

Southern

Democrats

American

(Know-Nothing)

Free Soil

Anti-Masonic

H. Ross Perot

H. Ross Perot

John B. Anderson

George C. Wallace

Robert M.

La Follette

Theodore Roosevelt

Eugene V. Debs

James B. Weaver

John Bell

John C.

Breckinridge

Millard Fillmore

Martin Van Buren

William Wirt

8.4

18.9

6.6

13.5

16.6

27.4

6

8.5

12.6

18.1

21.5

10.1

7.8

0

0

0

46

13

88

0

22

39

72

8

0

7

Did not run; endorsed

Republican candidate

George W. Bush

Ran as Reform Party

candidate

Did not run

Won 1.4 percent of the

popular vote

Returned to Republican

Party

Returned to Republican

Party

Won 3.2 percent of thepopular vote

Endorsed Democratic

candidate

Party dissolved

Party dissolved

Party dissolved

Won 4.9 percent of the

popular vote

Endorsed Whig

candidate

Year Party Candidate

Popular

Vote

(percent)

Outcome in

Next Election

Electoral

Vote

(number)

These third-party candidates received above the historical average of 5.6 percent of the popular vote.


25/40


The Republican Party PlatformBy Tucker Eskew

The Global War on Terror: To keep America and theworld safer, President Bush will continue working withour allies to fight and win the War on Terror. SinceSeptember 11, 2001, our brave military, with help fromdozens of other nations, toppled the Taliban inAfghanistan, removed a key ally of al-Qaida, and liberatedthe Afghan people. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein defied the

international community and 17 United Nationsresolutions over the course of 12 years, giving noindication that Iraq would ever disarm and comply withthe just demands of the world. In 2002 the UnitedNations Security Council unanimously voted thatSaddam Hussein had one final chance to comply with hisobligations to the international community, or therewould be serious consequences. Today, 25 million Iraqicitizens who once lived under the brutal tyranny ofSaddam Hussein are now free, and they are taking thefirst steps toward democracy. We are working with thepeople of Afghanistan and Iraq to cultivate liberty andsow the seeds of prosperity in the Middle East. Ournation is more secure because dangerous regimes withlinks to terror are no longer in power. The world issaferthough not yet fully safebecause we are workingwith allies to stop the financing of terror, to catchterrorists, and to promote democracy and freedom.

Homeland Security: The presidents most important jobis to protect the American homeland. Since September

Platform PositionsA political partys platform tells voters where the party stands on the important issues of

the day. We present excerpts from the 2004 platforms of the United States two majorparties, the Republican and the Democratic, after introductions to each written by

experienced party activists. Writing on the Republican Party platform is Tucker Eskew,former deputy assistant to the president in the White House Office of Communications,

and on the Democratic Party platform, Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador toMorocco, managing director and chief executive officer of Northstar Equity Group, and

chairman, Alliance for American Leadership.

The Democratic Party PlatformBy Marc Ginsberg

The Global War on Terror: The United States and otherdemocratic nations are engaged in a world struggleagainst radical Islamic terrorists that must be foughtoffensively on many fronts with all of our resourcesdiplomatic, economic, informational, as well as military.Although we enjoyed global support following theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), that

support has largely disappeared, and our alliances must berepaired in order to wage the most effective struggle toprevail. We must never be on the defensive or wait to beattacked again the battle must always be taken to theenemy, but it cannot be primarily focused on militaryengagements alone. The United States must also engagein a battle of ideas to repair and build new alliances withthe Muslim world to help it defeat Islamic radicalism. Wemust also reengage in promoting a durable peace in theMiddle East that irrevocably ends the Arab-Israeliconflict, leaves Israel strong and secure, and produces anew Palestinian leadership that categorically rejects andforcibly opposes terror and accepts Israels right to exist asa Jewish, democratic nation in the Middle East.

We mistakenly diverted our attention and resources fromthe real enemyal-Qaidaby attacking Iraq. The greatestthreat we face is the possibility of terrorists obtainingnuclear weapons, and we need to refocus our efforts toprevent this from occurring. Although Saddam Husseinwas a brutal dictator, that was not a reason to go to war.

Continued on next page Continued on next page


26/40

We have traded a dictator for chaos that has cost us vitalsupport among Iraqis and our allies. Our alliances and

global support for the United States were severelyundermined by our unsubstantiated rush to war. Basedon all available intelligence, Saddam neither possessedweapons of mass destruction, nor was he aiding al-Qaida.The United States is not necessarily safer as a result oftoppling Saddam, and the United States lacks vitalinternational support and a coherent strategy to restorestability to Iraq. The consequences of failing to stabilizeIraq compel us to change course and ensure that Iraqfaces a stable, prosperous, and democratic future.

The United States needs to embrace again its historical

trans-Atlantic partnership to effectively fight the war onterror, rebuild Iraq, stabilize Afghanistan, constrain NorthKorea, address Irans nuclear ambitions, and findconstructive solutions to overcoming Middle Eastinstability. This also means seeking consensus withEurope on issues like the Kyoto Protocol on theenvironment, the International Criminal Court,international trade, and foreign aid.

Homeland Security: Democrats are committed toseriously considering taking immediate action on all ofthe 9/11 Commissions recommendations, includingcreating the post of director of national intelligence,vastly improving our human intelligence capabilities, andintegrating the intelligence we gather. Our focus must beon preventing terrorists from obtaining weapons of massdestruction by securing all unprotected nuclear material,strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, destroyingchemical weapons stockpiles, and devoting economic andeducational assistance to failed states. Domestically, wemust adequately fund the needs of our first respondersand take protective actions against bioterrorism.

Trade and the Economy: The challenge for U.S.international trade and economic policy is to keep ourown economy growing and high-paying jobs increasing,while cutting the budget and trade deficits. TheDemocrats will promote the creation of jobs in theUnited States by passing a tax credit for manufacturers,including small businesses, for keeping jobs at home,while promoting fair trade by insisting on effective laborand environmental standards in agreements and enforcingunfair trade practice rules. Expansion of trade through


11, 2001, we have made tremendous progress. PresidentBush and Congress created a Department of Homeland

Security. By unifying more than 22 agencies and offices,the president has improved the governments ability toguard our borders, protect our infrastructure, and patrolour skies. He has worked to secure our borders whilekeeping our doors open to foreign visitors.

Trade and the Economy: In his second term, PresidentBush will focus on building a more prosperous,competitive economy. Elements of his plan include takingthe next bold steps in reforming education; building askilled and effective workforce; encouraging a pro-growth, fair, and simpler tax system; promoting research

and development in both the public and private sectors;meeting our energy needs and lessening our energydependence; reducing the regulatory burden; reforming

government; and opening markets for American goodsaround the globe. Free trade expands choices forAmerica's consumers and raises living standards for ourfamilies.

Immigration: The president proposes a new temporaryworker program that will match willing foreign

The Democratic Party PlatformThe Republican Party PlatformContinued from previous pageContinued from previous page

Continued on next pageContinued on next page

Senator John Kerry, left, and President George Bush are shown here duringtheir nationally televised debate on September 30 in Coral Gables, Florida, the

first of three such encounters (see page 28) they were scheduled to have in therun up to the elections on November 2. Their vice presidential candidates,Senator John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney, also engaged in anationally televised debate on October 5 in Cleveland, Ohio. During theseevents, in addition to defending their past records, the candidates argue thewisdom and goals of many of the points in their parties respective platformsand describe how they intend to implement them.


27/40

reduced tariffs and debt relief will benefit all challengednations, including our closest neighbors to the south.

Immigration: We must remember that from the ArcticCircle to Tierra del Fuego, the peoples of the Americasare linked through commerce, immigration, and familyties as never before. The increase of jobs in one countrydoes not mean corresponding losses in another. The free-flow of ideas and cooperative, sustained reform are thebest ways to assure a better life for all our children.

Global Health: Africa is the center of the globalHIV/AIDS crisis. Effective treatment and preventionprograms need to be driven by science, not by

conservative ideology. Imposing an agenda that prohibitsgovernment-funded organizations from discussing familyplanning options, opposes the use of condoms, oremphasizes abstinence as the best measure to prevent thedisease robs policymakers of the flexibility to craftsolutions that actually work. Payments into the GlobalFund need to be increased. The United States also mustprovide humanitarian assistance directly or providesecurity that allows unimpeded access for humanitarianworkers to all areas that are in crisis.




workers with willing American employers when noAmericans can be found to fill the jobs. This program

will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to themillions of undocumented men and women nowemployed in the United States, and to those in foreigncountries who seek to participate in the program andhave been offered employment here.

Global Health: President Bush is committed to the healthand welfare of the worlds population. For example, heannounced a five-year, $15-billion initiative to turn thetide in combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Thiscommitment of resources will help the most afflictedcountries in Africa and the Caribbean wage and win the

war against HIV/AIDS. The $15 billion in funding forthis initiative triples the U.S. commitment tointernational AIDS assistance.



The Democratic Party PlatformContinued from previous page

The Republican Party PlatformContinued from previous page


28/40

Democracy and Human Rights h October 2004 eJournal USA26

Terrorism

Iraq

Middle East

Victory in the war on terror requires a combination of

American determination and international cooperation

on all fronts.

It requires the ability and willingness to direct

immediate, effective military action when the capture or

destruction of terrorist groups and their leaders is

possible; a massive improvement in intelligence gathering

and analysis coupled with vigorous law enforcement; a

relentless effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds;

a global effort to prevent failed or failing states that can

become sanctuaries for terrorists; a sustained effort to

deny terrorists any more recruits by conducting effective

public diplomacy; and a sustained political and economic

effort to improve education, work for peace, support

democracy, and extend hope.

We cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow afailed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven

for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the

Middle East.

America needs a major initiative in public diplomacy to

support the many voices of freedom in the Arab and

Muslim worldAnd we must support human rights

groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated

to building a democratic culture from the grassroots up.

We will work to transform the Palestinian Authority bypromoting new and responsible leadership, committed to

fighting terror and promoting democracy. We support

the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated

to living in peace and security side by side with the

Jewish State of Israel.

We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the

enemy. We are confronting terrorists overseas so we

do not have to confront them here at home. We are

destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in

sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing,

and keeping them on the run.

We are preserving the peace by working with

more than 80 allied nations, as well as international

institutions, to isolate and confront

terrorists and outlaw regimes.

There is no negotiation with terrorists. No form

of therapy or coercion will turn them from their

murderous ways. Only total and complete destruction

of terrorism will allow freedom to flourish.

In Iraq, America is serving the cause of liberty, peace,and our own securityWe have full confidence in the

plan for Iraqi self-government that is currently being

implemented by Iraqs interim government.

Republicans support President Bushs policy of

working with every government in the Middle East

dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks, while

in the longer term expecting a higher standard of

reform and democracy from our friends in the region.

We will extend the peace by supporting the rise of

democracy, and the hope and progress that democracybrings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the

broader Middle East.

We support President Bushs vision of two states,

Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and

security If Palestinians embrace democracy and the

rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject

terror, they can count on American support for the

creation of a Palestinian state.

Platform Excerpts

Democratic Party Platform

Strong at Home, Respected

in the World

Republican Party Platform

A Safer World and a More

Hopeful AmericaIssue

The complete platforms are available at http://www.gop.com/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspxand at

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf


29/40

27eJournal USA

WMD

Americas

World Role

Trade

Global Health

Homeland

Security

Immigration

Economy

Preventing terrorists from gaining access to these

weapons must be our number one security goal.

We believe in an America that people around the

world admire, because they know we cherish not

just our freedom, but theirs. Not just our

democracy, but their hope for it. Not just our peace

and security, but the worlds.

We will make it a priority to knock down barriers

to free, fair, and balanced trade so other nations

markets are as open as our own. We will use all the

tools we have to create new opportunities for

American workers, farmers, and businesses, and

break down barriers in key export markets

Addressing global health challengesincluding the

AIDS pandemicis a humanitarian obligation and

a national security imperativeAnd we will restoreAmericas leadership in global health by rejecting

policies driven by ideology instead of science.

We need to improve our ability to gather, analyze,

and share information so we can track down

terrorists and stop them before they cause harm.

We will extend the promise of citizenship to those

still struggling for freedom Undocumented

immigrants within our borders who clear abackground check, work hard, and pay taxes should

have a path to earn full participation in America.

We will revive Americas manufacturing sector,

create new jobs, and protect existing ones by

ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs

overseas and cutting taxes for companies that create

jobs here at home.

We will not allow the worlds most dangerous regimes

to possess the worlds most dangerous weapons.

We affirm Americas role in leading the world toward

greater freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Our

efforts to expand the reach of economic and political

freedom are complemented by our work in fostering

religious liberty.

Free trade must be fair trade that advances Americas

economic goals and protects American jobs. To achieve

this goal, we must act globally, regionally, and

bilaterally to negotiate new trade agreements and

enforce existing trade commitments.

We fully support the Presidents leadership in

dramatically expanding resources to find an HIV/AIDS

vaccine and in devoting at least $15 billion over fiveyears towards global prevention, care, and treatment

programsundertaking a comprehensive approach to

the pandemic that involves education, abstinence,

prevention, testing, treatment, and care

The major institutions of American national

security...are being transformed to meet the challenge of

defending America in a new era.

The Republican Party supports reforming the

immigration system to ensure that it is legal, safe,

orderly and humaneA growing economy requires agrowing number of workers, and President Bush has

proposed a new temporary worker program that applies

when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.

We want more people to own and build small

businesses. We want more people to own and control

their health care. We want more people to own

personal retirement accounts.

Democratic Party Platform

Strong at Home, Respected

in the World

Republican Party Platform

A Safer World and a More

Hopeful AmericaIssue

Issues of Democracy h October 2004


30/40

Presidential debates have been a mainstay of theU.S. election process since 1976 when they were

resumed following the first televised debate in 1960between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. Votersconsistently cite debates as an influential factor indeciding their votes, and in close raceslike the 2004presidential racethey take on increased significance.President Bush and Senator Kerry faced off in 90-minutedebates in Florida on September 30 and in Missouri onOctober 8, and were to meet on October 13 in Arizona.Meanwhile, the vice presidential candidates, VicePresident Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards, held adebate October 5 in Ohio, another hotly contested statein the election.

Since its founding in 1987, the nonpartisan Commissionon Presidential Debates (CPD) has organized the debatesand set the rules for candidate participation and conduct.The CPD prescribed guidelines to ensure fairness andtransparency. This year, the first and third debates were tofollow a single-moderator format with clear rules for timelimits and candidate actions. For example, candidateswere not to pose direct questions to each other and were

to be prohibited from walking around onstage ormanipulating the stage to improve their own appearance.

The second debate was a town hall meeting whereaudience members could pose questions directly to thecandidates.

Although the impact of presidential debates is difficult toquantify, they clearly play a crucial role in the U.S.election process. This years debates have already exceededthe estimated 37.5 to 46.6 million people who tuned into the 2000 presidential debates. There is no questionthat the very large number of people who watch thedebates and the fact that they learn from the debates ...makes them an extremely important piece of the general

election process, said CPD Executive Director JanetBrown.

Above: Senator Kerry, left, listens as President Bush speaks September 30, 2004,in Coral Gables, Florida, during the first of their three scheduled debates.(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)


Nationally televised debates are a highlight of the presidential raceduring the closing weeks of the campaign.

Debating the Issues


31/40

On November 2,

registered votersacross the United

States will travel to localschools, churches, or townhalls to cast their ballotsnot only for president andvice president, but for local and state officials as well.While no one voting system is used throughout thecountry (see Voting Technology), one practice is thesame: voting at all polling places is confidential andconducted in the privacy of a voting booth.

Upon entering a polling place, voters find election offi-cials and volunteer poll workers, who check voter regis-tration records and assist voters with the voting process.A candidate or his or her supporters may stand outside ofa polling place, shaking hands or handing out electionmaterials. However, laws require these partisan activ

election guide 2004

Documents